INCREASED INCIDENCE OF CANCER NEAR A CELL-

PHONE TRAIVSMITTER STATION.

RONNI WOLF 1\[D1

DANI{Y WOLF ND2

From:

The Dermatolory Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and

the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Avivr ISRAEL.

The Pediatric Outtrlatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim,ISRAEL.

Running title: cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station.

Address for correspondence: Ronni TVoH, MD, Dermatology Unit Kaplan

Medical Center, Rechovot 7 6100, ISRAEL.

F nx 97 2 -9-9560978. E-m ail : woH-r@n etuisio n.n et.il

International Journal of Cancer Prevention

VOLUMB r, NUMBER z, APRIL zoo4

Increased Incidence of Calcer near a Cell-Phone Transmitter Station

by Ronni Wolf and DannY Wolf

rr I tlq

Abstract 2

Significant concern has been raised about possible health effects from exposure to

radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, especially after the rapid introduction of

mobile telecommunications systems. Parents are especially concemed with the

possibility that children might develop cancer after exposure to the RF emissions

from mobile telephone base stations erected in or near schools' The few

epidemiologic studies that did report on cancer incidence in relation to RF radiation

have generally presented negative or inconsistent results, and thus emphas2e the

need for more studies that should investigate cohorts with high RF exposwe for

ohanges in cancer incidence. The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is

an increased cancer incidence in populations, living in a small area, and exposed to

RF radiation from a cell-phone transmitter station.

This is an epidemiologic assessment, to determine whether the incidence of cancer

cases among individuals exposed to a cell-phone transmitter station is different from

that expected in Israel, in Netanya, or as compared to people who lived in a nearby

area. Participants are people (n:622) living in the area near a cell-phone transmitter

station for 3-7 years who were patients of one health clinic (of DW). The exposure

began 1 year before the start of the study when the station first came into service. A

second cohort of individuals (n:7222) who get their medical services in a clinic

located nearby with very closely matched, environment, workplace and occupational

characteristics was used for comparison.

In the area of exposure (area A) eight cases of different kinds of cancer were

diagnosed in a period of only one year. This rate of cancers was compared both with

the rate of 3l cases per 10,000 per year in the general population and the 211222 rute

recorded in the nearby clinic (area B). Relative cancer rates for females were 10.5 for

area A, 0.6 for area B and 1 for the whole town of Netanya. Cancer incidence of

women in area A was thus significantly higher b<0.0001) compared with that of area

B andthe whole city. A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4-15

times more cases in area A than in the entire population-

3

The study indicates an associationbetween increased incidence of cancer and living

in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station'

Key Words:

Radiofrequency radiation; Cell-phone transmitter station (cell-phone antenna);

Cancer incidence studY; NetanYa-

7-"

Introduction

Much concem has been expressed about possible health effects from exposure to-radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, particularly following publication of

scientific reports suggesting that residence near high voltage power lines may be

associated with an increased risk of developing childhood leukemia. While interest

tended to focus on microwave ovens and radar equipment in the past, it is now mobile

telecommunication that attracts the most attention. The rapid introduction of mobile

telecommunications systems, the exponential increase in the use of such phones, and

the many base stations needed for serving them have engendered renewed concems

about exposure to RF radiation.

The biological effects of low level electromagnetic fields and a possible potential

relation to cancer causation are controversial- There have been several

epidemiological studies of the possible adverse health effects associated with

environmental exposure to extremely low frequency (0-300IIz) non-iontngradiation, such as that emitted by power cables and electric substations, linking such

exposure to leukemia, brain cancer, male breast cancer and skin and eye melanoma

(1-1 1).

Far less attention has been paid to health hazards from environmental exposure to

radiation in the RF range (100 kHz to 300 GHz), including the radiation emitted from

cell-phone equipment, in the frequencies of 850 MHz, at field strengths much below

those required to produce thermal effects. The few epidemiologic studies that did

report on cancer incidence in relation to RF radiation (mainly from occupational

exposure including microwave and radar and from living in proximity to TV towers)

have generally presented negative or inconsistent results, or were subject to possible

confonnding from other exposures (12-20).

Laboratory studies in this area have also been confusing and conJlicting. While

some animal studies suggested that RF fields accelerate the development of cancers,

other studies found no carcinogenic effect (21).

5

Obviously, there is an urgent need for extensive, well-conducted epidemiological

and laboratory studies QI-24).

An opportunity for studying the effect of RF radiation presented itself in South

Netanyq where a cell-phone transmitter station was located in the middle of a small

area. we took advantage of the fact,thatmost of the population in the investigated

area belong to one outpatient clinic (of DW), and undertook an epidemiologic

assessment, in which we compared the cancer incidence of this area to those of a

nearby clinic, to the national incidence rates of the whole country and to the

incidence rates in the whole town of Netanya'

-,

6

Material and methods

Radio -fr equency r adi ation

The cell-phone transmitter unit is located at the south of the city ofNetanyain an area

called Irus (area A). It first came into service n7/96. The people in this area live in half a

circle with a 350 meter radius centered on the transmitter.

The antenna is 10 meters high, The antenna bears total maximum transmission power at

frequencies of 850 lvftIz of 1500 watt when working at fulIpower.

Both measured and predicted power density (for the frequencies of 850 MHz) in the

whole exposed area were far below 0.53 pdcmZthus the power density is far below the

current guidelines which are based onthe thermal effects of RF exposure. Exact measured

power density in each house are described in table 1.

The current Israeli standard uses 50 packets/sec with Time-Division-Multiple-Access

(mMA) quadrature modulation. The antenna produces 50 packets/sec, using a 3:1

multiplexed Time-Division-Multiple-Access (TDMA) modulationwith a33Yo duty cycle.

Statistical anah)sis:

We conducted a cancer incidence study to investigate the incidence of cancer cases of

individuals exposed to a cell-phone transmitter station, in comparison to those of a

nearby clinic, to the national incidence rates of the whole country and to the incidence

rates in the whole town of Netanya.

The cohort included 622 people living in the Irus area (areaA) for at least 3-7 years and

were patients of one health clinic (of DW). The exposure began n7/96 which was 1 year

before the start of our study.

Statistical analysis was based on the comparison of observed and expected numbers of

cancer cases.

7

hr order to compare incidence rates, 95o/o confidence intervals were computed.

The observed mrmber of cancer cases is the number of all the cancer cases in the exposed

cohort in the period between 7/97 - 6/98.

hr order to estimate relative risk, rate ratios were computed using the rate of 3 different

cohorts as the base @g rxpggted values):

The rate in a nearby clinic (which serves a population of 1222 people, all of them

living in area B) during the same period of time, i.e. 7197 - 6l98.In order to compare

area A and area B populations we used:

2X" test to compare origin and sex division

t- test to compare age means

The national incidence rates of the whole country.

The incidence rates in the whole town of Netanya where the 2 clinics (of area A and B)

are located. The data of 2 and 3 were given to us by the Israel cancer regrstry and are

updated to the years 9I-94.

We also examined the history of the exposed cohort (of the A area) for malignancies in

the 5 years before the exposure began and found only 2 cases in comparison to 8 cases

detected one year after the transmitter station came into service.

Results

Of the 622people of area A, eight cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in

a period of only one year (from July 1997 to June 1998). Details on these cases are

presented in Table 1. Briefly, we found 3 cases of breast carcinoma, and one case of

ovary carcinoma, lung carcinoma, Hodgkin's disease, osteoid osteoma, and

hypernephroma.

8

This rate of cancers in the population of area A was compared both with the rate of 31

cases per 10,000 per year in the general population and the 2/1222 rate recorded in a

nearby clinic. To each one of the rates, a 95 percent confidence interval was calculated

(Table 2): the rates in area A were significantly higher than both those in area B, and the

population as a whole.

A comparison of the relative risk revealed that there were 4.15 times more cases in area

A than in the entire population.

The population characteristics of areas A and B were very similar (Table 2-5).Tine y2

test for comparing gender and origin frequencies showed no significant differences in

these parameters between the two areas. Age means, as compared by t-test and age

distribution stratum also showed no significant difference between the two groups.

Table 2a lists the rates of cancer incidence of areas A and B compared to data of the

whole town of Netanya. The comparison clearly indicated that the cancer incidence of

women in area A is significantly higher (p<0.0001) compared with that of the whole city.

fliscussion

Our study indicates an association between an increased incidence of cancer and living in

proximity to a cell-phone kansmitter station.

Studies of this type are prone to biases. Possible methodological artefacts to explain our

alarming results were considered:

Differences in socioeconomic class and employment status, and demographic

heterogeneity due to differences in age, sex and ethnicity were excluded. The two areas

that were compared have very closely matched environment, workplace and

occupational characteri sti cs.

Confounding variables affecting individuals could not be absolutely adjusted for"

however, there was no ionizing radiation that could affect the whole community except

the previously mentioned mobile antenna station. There is no traffic density in this

area, neither is there any industry or any other air pollution. The population of area A

9

(on which adequate data could be gathered) did not suffer from uncommon genetic

conditions, nor did they receive carcinogenic medications.

Differences in diagnosis and registration of cancer cases. Although v1s eannot

altogether exclude the possibility that higher awareness of the physician responsible

for area A led to an artificial increase in cancer cases in this area, this possibility seems

to us very unlikely, since both are qualified family physicians.

Several frndings are of particular interest:

The measured level of RF radiation (power density) in the area was low; far below the

current guidelines based on the thermal effects of RF exposure. We suggest, therefore,

that the current guidelines be re-evaluated-

The enormous short latency period; less than 2 years, indicates that if there is a real

causal association between RF radiation emitted from the cell-phone base station and

the cancer cases (which we strongly believe there is), then the RF radiation should

have a very strong promoting effect on cancer at very low radiation!

Although the possibility remains that this clustering of cancer cases in one yezlr was a

chance event, the unusual sex pattern of these sases, the 6 different cancer kinds, and

the fact that only one patient smoked make this possibility very improbable and

remote. It should be noted tbatl out of 8 cancer cases were women, like in the work of

Maskarine c (25) who found 6 out of 7 leukemia cases in proximity to rddio towers to

occur in girls. Such unusual appearances ofcancer cases due to one accusod factor on

two completely different occasions is alarming-

We are aware of at least 2 areas in which a drastic increase in the incidence of cancer

cases occurred near a cell-phone antenna, however, the setup was not suitable for a

well design study of those cases. [n one of them (which also got publication in the

daily newspapers) there were 6 out of 7 cancer cases in women working in a store in

close proximity to a cell-phone antenna.

In conclusion, the results of this study showed that there was a significantly greater

incidence of cancers of all kinds within the vicinity of a cell-phone transmitter station.

-

10

It would be certainly too premature to draw any conclusions from our results before

they are confiflned and repeated by other studies from other areas, particularly in view

of the factthat a greatmajority of papers on this subject showed that RF frelds and

mobile telephone frequencies were not genotoxic, did not induce genetic effects in

vitro and in vivo, and were not found to be teratogenic or to induce cancers Q$.The

results of this paper should, however, serve as an alarm and emphasuethe need for

further investigations.

Addendum

At one year following the close of the study, 8 new cases of cancer were diagnosed in

area A and two cases in area B. Among the cases diagnosed in area A was one of osteoid

osteoma, the second case from the beginning of the study'

11

References

1. Cartwright R (1989) Low frequency alternating electromagnetic fields and

leukaemia: the saga so far. Br J Cancer 60:649-65I-

2. Demers PA et al (1991) Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and breast

cancer in men. Am J Epidemiol. 134:340-347 -

3. Dolk H et al (Igg7) Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in

Great Britain. Am J Epidemiol 145'-l-9-

4. Elliott p et al (IggZ) The Small Area Health Statistics Unit a national facility for

investigating health around point sources of environmental pollution in the United

Kingdom. J Epidemiol. C ommuntty Health 46',3 45 -3 49 -

5. Feychting M and Ahlbom A (1993) Magnetic fields and cancer in children residing

near Swedish high-voltage power lines. Am J Epidemiol 138.467-48I-

6. Goldsmith J (1995) Epidemiologic evidence of radio-frequency (microwave)

effects on health in military broadcasting and occupational studies. Int J Occup Med

Environ Health I:47 -57 .

7. Guenel P et al (1993) Incidence of cancer in persons with occupational exposure to

electromagnetic fields in Denmark - Br-J Ind-Med 50:758-164'

8. Hocking B et al (1996) Cancer incidence and mortlity and proximity to TV towers.

Med J Ausr 165:601-615.

9. Kraut A et al (1991) Epidemiologic investigation of a cancer cluster in professional

football players. Environ.Res. 56:13l-143 -

10. Lester J and Moore D (1982) Cancer mortality and Air Force bases- J

B io el ectric ity I :7 7 -82.

T2

11. Maskarinec G et al Q99$ Investigation of increased incidence in childhood

leukaemia near radio towers in Hawaii: preliminary observations. J Environ Pathol

Toxicol Oncol 13:33-37 -

12. McGregor A (1998) WHO launches mobile-phone hazards study. Lancet

35t:276.

13. Milham S Jr (1988) Increased mortality in amateur radio operators due to

lymphatic and hematopoietic malignancies. Am J Epidemiol. 127:50-54'

14. pollack H (1979) Epidemiologic data on American personnel in the Moscow

embassy. Bult N.Y.Acad.Med 55:1182-1 186-

15. polsen P and Merritt J (1985) Cancer mortality and Air Force bases: a re-

evaluation. J Bioelectricity 4:I2l-127 -

16. Repacholi M (lgg7)Radiofrequency field exposure and cancer: what do the

laboratory studies suggest. Environ Health Perspect 105 (Suppl 6):1565-1568-

17. Repacholi M (1998) Low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic

fields: health effects and research needs. Bioelectromagnetics 19:1-19'

18. Robinette C, Silvermann C, and Jablon S (1980) Effects upon health of

occupational exposure to microwave radiation (radar). Am J Epidemtol ll2,,39-53- '

19. Savitz DA et al(1988) Case-control study of childhood cancer and exposure to

6}-Hzmagnetic fields. Am J Epidemiol- I28.,2t-38-

20. SavitzD, Ahlbom A (1994) Epidemiologic evidence of cancer in relation to

residential and occupational exposure. In Carpenter D, Ayrapetyan S (eds) Biological

effects of electric and magnetic fields. sydney: Academic Press.

21. SavitzD and Calle E (1987) Leukaemia and occupational exposure to

electromagnetic helds: review of epidemiologic surveys. J Occup Med29:47-51-

22.Tbenault, GP. Health effects of electromagnetic radiation on workers:

epidemiologic studies. Bierbaum, PJ and Peters, IM. 9l-I24.I99I. Cincinnati, OH,

US Department of Health and Human Services. Proceedings of the Scientific

13

Workshop on the health Effects of Electic and Magnetic Fields on Workers. Ref

Type: Conference Proceeding

23. Tornqvist S et al (1991) Incidence of leukaemia and brain tumours in some

"electical occupations" . Br.J Ind. Med 48:597 -603.

24. Verschaeve L and Maes A (1998) Genetic, carcinogenic and teratogenic effects of

radiofrequency fields. Mutat Res 4I0:L41-165.

25. Wertheimer N and Leeper E (1979) Electrical wiring configurations and

childhood cancer. Am J Epidemiol lA9:273-284.

l4

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to Aviva Zeer M.Sc from the zinmancollege of Phisical

Education and Sport Sciences At the Wingate Tnstitute, Israel, for help with the

statistical analYsis'

The opinions explessed herein are solely those of the writers and do not necessarily

reflect the opinions of the institutions with which the writers are associated'

/

15

1. Origin: ash - Ashkenazien Jews sph - Spharadic Jews

Tabte 7: Cancer cases in area A

CANCER TYPE Measuredpower densityinuwlcllrz

NAME AGE SEX

ozu-GnIl

SMO

KING

Ovary ca stage 1 0.3pdcm2Hemda 52 f ash No

No Rreast ca in situ 0.4pwlcdlEdna 42 f sph

0.5rrw/cm2Tania s4 f ash No Rreast ca

0.4wwlc#Neli 67 f ash Yes Breast ca

Hodgkins 0.5pw/cm2Galit 24 f ash No

Miriam 61 f sph No Lung ca 0.3u#cm2

Masal 37 f sph No Osteoid osteoma O.+w*lc#

Max 78 m ash No Hypernephroma 0.3pw/cmz

16

Table 2: Cancer rates in area A, B and the total popalation-

Table 2a: Cancer rates in area A, B und the whole towrt

No. of

cancer

cases

populati

on size

Rate per

year per

10,000

confide

interval

lower

limit

ce

(es%)

upper

limit

relative

risk

Area A 8 622 129 4A.l 2t7.2 4.rs

Area B 2 1222 t6 -6.3 39.0 0.s3

total

populat

31 10,000 31 20.1 4r.9 1.00

Male Female

rate Relative rate rate relative rate

Area A JJ r.4 262 10.5

Area B t7 0.7 T6 0.6

Whole town 24 I 25 I

17

Table 3: Comparing area A to areu B by genden

18

Table 4: Comparing area A to area B by origin

r9

Table 5: Comparing age means in both areos.

Table 5: Age distribution by strstunL

0-1 1-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-s0 50-60 60:10 >70

IRUS t6 143 ts7 65 7A 88 41 2t 2t

POLEG 31 28s 251 139 180 158 83 55 34